[tjoff]

> This comes across as them selling a product they know could fail in dangerous ways, but they don't want to be responsible for any of it.

Exactly the same as Tesla then?

Though I do think they are both terrible reckless.

"The driver is always responsible" might or might not be a good enough legal scapegoat, but morally inexcusable.

[gonehome]

Not at all the same as Tesla.

Tesla expects you to use its product on the road and expects it to work within the constraints they tell you with you also paying attention.

[tjoff]

> "with you also paying attention."

So no guarantees whatsoever then. Because you are always responsible and are always expected to recover from anything the autopilot might ever come up with.

Teslas do fail in deadly ways. Everyone that cares to look knows this. Yet Tesla is fine with it, even while knowing that humans can't reason about safety when the car drives perfectly the other 99% of times.

[jryle70]

> Because you are always responsible and are always expected to recover from anything the autopilot might ever come up with.

That's always been the case for any driving assistance systems that automakers offer, AFAIK. Do you object to the state of driving assistance in general or just how Tesla implements it?

[tjoff]

Well driving assistance are mostly about assistance.

While Tesla allows for and gives the impression of it doing more than that, when it can't. You are expected to react within a split second at any time. Actually just driving the car is a way simpler task than supervising someone else that has unintuitive blind spots.

Something that google discovered early on and anyone that thinks about it realize. A car that mostly drives itself is way more dangerous than a car without any assistance at all.

Ask Uber.

[luplex]

Tesla guarantees that an attentive driver can safely take control.

Comma does not.

[DesolationJones]

They do guarantee that.

https://medium.com/@comma_ai/how-to-write-a-car-port-for-ope...

"No ADAS system currently on the market has safety guarantees on perception or planning algorithms.

So, what must be guaranteed is the ability of the driver to easily regain full control of the vehicle at any time. In openpilot, this is done through the satisfaction of the 2 main safety principles that a Level 2 driver assistance system must have:

1. The driver must always be capable to immediately re-take manual control of the vehicle, by stepping on either pedal or by pressing the cancel button;

2.The vehicle must not alter its trajectory too quickly for the driver to safely react. This means that while the system is engaged, the actuators are constrained to operate within reasonable limits."

[camjohnson26]

They don’t guarantee it they just provide a disclaimer. There’s plenty of driver monitoring solutions they could provide but don’t. Combine that with deeply unethical promises of full self driving coming just around the corner, feature complete by 2020, fully autonomous road trip by 2017, and you’re left with a dangerous product and customers that overestimate its abilities.

[luplex]

I'm pretty sure the disclaimer does nothing. If they put out a product they need to expect people will use it, and they need to take actions to keep those people safe.

At least that's how I think it works in Germany.